February 27, 2008
Federal Budget Drops, TTC Fights Stops, Pam's Third Marriage Flops
Say hello to a "prudent" budget. Stéphane Dion criticized the bill for being ineffectual, but of course not so ineffectual that the Liberals would vote against it and force an election. (Elsewhere, Thomas Walkom points out that the budget includes a new system of income tax shelter that will, and I am sure you are surprised by this, primarily benefit wealthy Canadians.)
Julian Fantino complains about "discount sentences." Apparently, the idea that experienced criminals know how to exploit the criminal justice system deeply disturbs Fantino, who suggests that we mindwipe them so they cannot do this. When it was pointed out to Fantino that we do not as such have the technology to mindwipe criminals, he explained how this was a further constraint upon police that was totally unreasonable "like that goddamn Miranda rights bullshit."
TTC considers assigning paramedics to subway stations in order to combat train delays. However, litter bins on the platforms are still totally unreasonable and how dare you even ask about such things.
Barack and Hillary have probably their last debate. The debate was notable for being moderated by Tim Russert, a massive tub of fail whose self-important gotcha questions insulted the intelligence of all present and viewing. Tim Russert would also like you to know that he is just an ordinary blue-collar lad from Buffalo who happens to make millions of dollars every year.
Pamela Anderson wants to annul her third marriage. The marriage to professional sleazebag Rick Salomon apparently isn't working out. I know, I know, you're all just shocked that the guy who starred in the Paris Hilton sex tape wasn't a keeper, but Torontoist is sure that Pam and Ricky still really care about one another––just not in a mommy-and-daddy-love-each-other sort of way.
Photo by Grant Neufeld.
|
I just want someplace to throw my garbage, is that so wrong :(
What is that? A rock? Bag of fat? The world's largest wad of gum?
I don't know who I hate more right now. The Liberals for not wanting to risk their jobs by forcing an election, instead of doing their jobs and forcing an election, or the Cons for taking advantage of that and making everything a confidence vote, also instead of doing their jobs.
The registered "savings" account for $5,000 in the budget is clearly aimed at investors as a make-good for the income trust debacle. Zero capital gains tax? Load up on gold stocks.
However, if you stick five grand into a 5% GIC, you'll only be saving the taxable portion: the interest, or about $250. Assume a tax rate of 20% and all people will benefit from the special account is $50/year. Is that amount enough to persuade people to save?
And how many people have 5k to put into their accounts yearly anyhow?
Thomas Walkom's article is hogwash. By no means am I supporting the tax-free savings plan, but making a portion of investment income tax-free will benefit all those that currently save. Besides, why can't other income brackets benefit from some relief every now and then?
The low income bracket has the lower tax rate. They receive a GST credit, a larger Child Tax Benefit and the Working Income Tax Benefit, in addition to all the other credits that taxpayers are entitled to.
That said, Flaherty could have achieved a similar result by increasing the basic personal exemption, reducing the tax rates and/or making the first x amount of investment income tax free, without requiring Canadians to shift their money into yet another savings account.
My preference would be to make all investment income tax free (I'm open to excluding a portion of capital gains). That would eliminate the need for RRSPs, RESPs and now the TFSP.
Will it benefit 'wealthier' Canadians more than low income Canadians. Very likely. But that does not make it a bad thing. Especially if frees up capital and encourages people to invest.
Looks to me like a photo of a rapidly thawing frozen chicken in a glass.
Rek: I had to click through to the image description myself to figure out what it was (a brain? Candy floss in a bag?). It's a frozen turkey, which, apparently, had nothing to say on important political matters.
Why are there no more litter bins on the platform? I noticed this a few weeks ago. Are they worried about terrorism or something? Are they trying to cut costs? It's really annoying.
The debate was notable for being moderated by Tim Russert, a massive tub of fail whose self-important gotcha questions insulted the intelligence of all present and viewing. Tim Russert would also like you to know that he is just an ordinary blue-collar lad from Buffalo who happens to make millions of dollars every year.
Exactly right.
Tim Russert is a disgrace - eg: "Senator Obama, since you are black, don't you have a special obligation to denounce everything said by any black person anywhere that offends the sensibilities of white people?"
And then, after Obama denounces Farrakhan, "Senator Obama, since you know *other* black people who are not on record as having denounced Louis Farrakhan, don't you have an obligation to distance yourself from them too?"
I suppose it is now only fair for Hillary Clinton, as a white female, to denounce Queen Elizabeth I and Catherine the Great (*also* white female leaders!) for any sins they committed as well...
You are spot on, t rek.
The Liberal cowardice has been appalling. The Conservatives have the smallest minority government in Canadian history, and govern unimpeded as a majority.
I don't know what's more painful, being governed by the Conservatives, or the incredible contortions the Liberals wind themselves into to avoid forcing an election.
The risk as always with bringing down a minority government is the unfortunate fact that the electorate actually hates elections and will punish to some degree whomever is perceived as forcing the election. I'd rather the dance we have right now where Stevie is to nervous to do too much permanently dangerous to the unfortunately real chance of handing "he of the cold dead shark eyes" the keys to the liquor cabinet and unrestricted access to the chequebook for four whole years.
The electorate doesn't hate elections as much as the electorate is *told* it hates elections.
You know who really hates elections? Reporters. The last thing they want to have to do is trek around the country in the depths of February.
Which explains why they keep telling us how much we should hate elections...
Good call McKingford. I've always gotten the sense that politicians are the real driving force behind the "public hates elections" sentiment. If the public really did hate elections we would have a smaller turnout at the polls. Why vote if you hate voting? Obviously "we the public" don't hate elections that much.
Perhaps what the public really hates is the empty rhetoric, the endless political pandering and advertising and the suspicious promises that come with an election, but actually appreciate the chance to take part in the electoral process...or at least the 55% or so of us who vote each time.
I'm assuming the removal of the litter bins has more to do with security than it does with cost savings.
Which is also why the former, very opaque, tiled bins were replaced by ones that allow the transparent bags to be seen.
I'm fairly sure it has nothing to do with cost savings as I know many subway station's bus platforms have bins for each bus alcove (such as Isington and Warden). If cost savings was the issue, then I doubt they'd remove the 2 or 3 subway platform bins before they removed the half dozen, lesser used bus platform bins.
Have Decima, Ipsos, Leger, or any of the big pollsters, even done a poll to see if people are ready for an election?
I love elections. If I had it my way, we'd be voting every month or two. And if you didn't vote, you'd have to pay higher taxes or something.